B J PATEL Vs. VADILAL DOLALRAM AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the defendants under the provisions of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act for relief from its pendens. The grounds urged in the attidavit-in-support of this application are, interalia, that the plaintiff's suit is for specific performance of an alleged agreement which is oral only, that the 1st defendant from which has allegedly agreed to sell the property consists of partners who are very old and that they are not helped in the business by their sons who have their own independent business, that none of the defendants reside at the suit property, that the property is a valuable property worth about Rs. 20 lacs and that the defendants desire to wind up the affairs of the partnership and the main thing necessary for the purpose is to sell the property. The attidavit thereafter proceeds to narrate shortly the circumstances surrounding the alleged agreement and concludes that the entire case in the plaint is false and that the suit is filed only with a view to prevent the defendants from selling the property pending the suit. It is contended that in fact the plaintiff has no cause of action at all and that the reason why the plaintiff did not apply for interim relief. If us stated that in the present uncertain conditions in the present property market, the defendants are anxious to sell the property and that several; enquiries were received but the purchaser is not willing to make an agreement in view of the suit. From the said affidavit, one fact the clearly, emerges is that enquiries have been received from purchasers and it can therefore be safely presumed that the value of the property mentioned in the affidavit is obviously based on the said enquiries, and therefore, the value of about Rs. 20 lacs can be said to be a fair market value according to the defendants.

(2.) Mr. Mehta took me through the facts of the case with a view to convince me that the plaintiff does not have any case or in any event a very weak prima facie case. The made out in the plaint is so weak as is hardly likely that the plaintiff will succeed in the suit. After Mr. Mehta completed his arguments, the case was adjourned for negotiations and it is being heard today.

(3.) Mr. Ghelani for the plaintiff states that his client is prepared to buy the said property for a price of Rs. 21,33,000/- which is equivalent to the value of the property as alleged by the defendants themselves and give up rest of the claim. This offer is not acceptable to the defendants.